If you search “Great Awakening” in most browsers today; you get references to a few books, music albums, the History Channel’s reference to Colonial America during the 1730’s (1730–1740) under the description of “British History.” Just as a reminder of where we come from, right? Of course, on the website, Wikipedia, we learn that this term has been used to describe Protestant revival and apparently it is recognized to have happened numerous times in the past — at least, four times!
However, QAnon has used the term to describe overcoming Cognitive Dissonance. CD is a defensive mechanism which has contributed to the difficulties in “red-pilling” everyone. If you can recall the difficulty YOU had in admitting that our entrusted and beloved government (personified as Uncle Sam) had somehow betrayed us — not just in subtle ways, but in extravagant ruses, PSYOPS/MISOS, False Flags, coverups, etc. — then you understand that YOUR awakening was nothing short of a paradigm shift. Your whole world changed. How you defined things, who your trusted sources of information were and your having to admit, “we all had been played.”
We all love a good magic trick. Sometimes we can figure out “the trick,” and sometimes we can’t, but it’s all in good fun, right? However, the charlatans who’ve tricked us this time are playing for keeps. These people are not nice people. In fact, some say even “sick.” We shall see. Anyhow, back to our question, “What is THE GREAT AWAKENING?”
To awaken the masses, we simply must teach them to do what we’ve already accomplished. We know it can be done because we’ve managed to do it. However, how to awaken our friends and family?
First, we must acknowledge that the Internet is the great game changer. They have controlled the narrative for as long as anyone can remember. This means searching for new sources of information that we feel that we can trust. Therefore, Open Source Intelligence and Crowdsourcing are two terms that EVERYONE should familiarize themselves with. With all the information out there — some true, some false — it is up to the individual to discern whether a source is a viable source or not.
Therefore, it’s also important to understand why we believe what we do. Believing and knowing are practically synonymous to a human once we’ve made up our mind whether we believe the source is truthful or not. Hence, understanding how we learn can help us identify how/why we believe certain things. Science tells us that there are, at least, five techniques we use in order to learn.
The first technique is Emulation/Imitation which can be described as “monkey see, monkey do.” The second technique is Memorization which we use to recite poetry or lines from a play. The third technique is Trial & Error which is responsible for most of the things we hold to be true. It is the technique we use to repair cars, computers, etc. We attempt a fix until we find the correct one. The same can be said about social skills — we attempt to fix a relationship, or economic skills — we attempt to optimize (fix) our cash flow (by maximizing revenue, minimizing expenses or a combination of the two). The last two techniques are typically used together, albeit conversely. These techniques are referred to as Comparing and Contrasting. If you recall back to your learning algebra, you recall your algebra teacher have you memorize (the second technique) a few basic theorems — like if a = b and b = c then a = c. This is you comparing two variables (data) — one being already known (or believed to be true) to another variable (or data) that is unknown. While a comparison is typically understood to be “finding the similarities,” contrasting is understood to be “finding the differences” in two things (variables, ideas, values, etc.).
Typically, our first source of information is also our most dear and trusted source — that is, our mother. Mama told me the sky is blue, so it must be so. Whether you realize that you’re doing it or not, every source of information that you encounter in your lifetime until this very moment — you compare to Mama. In other words, Mama is a trusted source of information and if I compare and contrast whatever the present source says to that which Mama told me and I judge it to be viable or agreeable with Mama — I trust it — and I will incorporate it into my existing belief system. If the present source is not viable/agreeable with Mama, I distrust that source. Of course, if both sources of information are trusted, we do all sorts of mental acrobatics to justify the differences between the two — like perhaps they’re BOTH right (maybe the sky is bluish-white since Daddy tells me the sky is white) or perhaps I misunderstand their full meanings. So, as you can see, a paradigm shift in what is believed… questioning your belief system can be very traumatic. You may have to re-evaluate sources of information going back decades. Therefore, the underlying question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST? This can explain why Christian parents typically raise Christian children and why Muslim parents typically raise Muslim children.
The Internet is unconstrained. However, that’s the beauty of the Internet. It is incredibly difficult to censor ideas online. Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is data collected from publicly available sources (essentially, any publication attainable from your public library or university library). Crowdsourcing is your online journalists, bloggers and alternative media. Simply put, both OSINT and Crowdsourcing are people talking with people… people SHARING ideas. It’s more a collaborative/cooperative effort than a competitive effort.
I have no idea what it was that “red-pilled” you, but for me it was 911. Today, I can’t fathom how anyone could possibly believe the official narrative. Of course, I blindly endorsed this narrative for over a decade… not actively, but passively. I had a friend challenge me in Mosul, Iraq, “Take another look at 911.” I did… five years later.
However, also part of THE GREAT AWAKENING is teaching everyone the difference between SCIENCE and PSEUDOSCIENCE. See, THIS is what we can use to identify the PSYOPS and MISOS of the world. While most of us think we know what distinguishes the two from each other, it’s ultimately semantics. I recall trying to present empirical evidence to someone who still believed the official narrative of 911. I challenged them to produce evidence. Because I was so incessant with my argument, they accused me of pursuing my “conspiracy theory” with the “fanaticism” of a “religious zealot.” The irony didn’t escape me, the ideologues were accusing me of adhering to ideology. To help us better understand the two, let’s go to one of the authorities of Scientific Philosophy — Karl Popper. Karl Popper is considered one of the greatest Philosophers of Science of the 20th Century. He famously said, “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”
Let’s look at GLOBAL WARMING as our example. Proponents of “global warming” or “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” argue that human activity through industrialization is largely to blame for a rising of Earth’s temperature. Since when did carbon dioxide (CO2) become a pollutant? Their first warning came in 1922. Every prediction they have ever made concerning the ice caps or sea levels has been proven erroneous. They also like talking about a consensus of 97% of scientists agree with this assertion. However, scientists like Dr. Patrick A. Moore, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Dr. Ivar Giaever, Dr. Ian Plimer, etc. refute most of their claims. I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of the arguments. I’ll allow you to dig for yourselves. Suffice it to say, NONE of their arguments can be substantiated upon closer scrutiny.
However, these proponents of Global Warming claim that the irrefutability of their claims is its strength. They cite that WARMER temperatures are attributed to “climate change,” COLDER temperatures are also attributed to “climate change,” LESS rainfall is attributed to “climate change,” however conversely, MORE rainfall is also attributed to “climate change.” Seemingly, everything we witness in nature is attributed to “climate change.” In other words, it is dogma… it’s ideology… like a belief in god. If there is no metric by which the phenomenon may be tested or challenged…. OR… if there is NO WAY for me to change your mind… there is no way for you to conclude, “I’m wrong” or “I was mistaken” … it’s dogma… it’s pseudoscience. Therefore, the onus isn’t on people like me — the “deniers” as they’ve (popular media) has labeled us — but is instead the onus is on the proponents of “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change” to put forth a TESTABLE hypothesis that could POSSIBLY be tested and could POSSIBLY be proven correct or incorrect. Is there a metric that you would put forth that can be contested? So, if EVERYTHING endorses the theory and nothing could possibly challenge or refute it — then it undermines the scientific veracity rather than strengthen it.
Like Chicken Little, their alarmism is staggering. Unlike Chicken Little, they shout down their dissenters and naysayers and engage in character assassination. They have NO OTHER argument. Their theories are wrong. The warming trend that we find ourselves in today started in 1700… long before most countries industrialized. Are you going to attribute “climate change” to this? Good luck!
A theory’s testability then shouldn’t be shouted down. It should be embraced for the whole world to see. Sure, we demand TRANSPARENCY of government, but we also demand TRANSPARENCY of the scientific method. Those of us who demand a second 911 investigation should be respected, not rebuked. If you are so confident that the official narrative is accurate, prove it. Don’t be so condescending. Bring forth all the evidence. Allow the world to see other than a tome (The NIST Report) that apparently no one scrutinized very closely… and is flawed. You can call it a Show Trial if you must, but regardless what you call it — STOP WITH THE COVERUP. Stop with the secrets. We demand accountability.